On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
its ruling in Miller
v. Alabama. The Court held mandatory life sentences for juveniles
without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional. The Court
reasoned that “[w]hile a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate
the Eighth Amendment, such a sentence would be an unconstitutionally
disproportionate punishment for children.” Furthermore, the Court added the
punishment should be proportioned to the offense and the offender. Miller is a victory for juvenile justice advocates, but the fight
continues. Miller abolishes mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences, but it
still permits a judge to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. It
is time for the United States to completely abolish juvenile life without
parole sentences. The court’s focus for juvenile offenders should be
rehabilitation.
More than half of the states are affected by the Court’s decision
in Miller. There are
currently twenty-nine states that have mandatory life without parole sentences
for juveniles, and there are approximately 2500 juveniles serving life without
parole in the United States.
States have promptly begun to respond to the Court’s
decisions. North Carolina, the first state to respond to the Court’s
decision, has amended its sentencing laws to comply with Miller. Pennsylvania, the
state with the highest number of juveniles serving life without parole, has
initiated legislative hearings to determine how to best comply with Miller. Michigan, the state
with the second highest number of juveniles serving life without parole, has
also initiated legislative hearings to determine how to best comply with Miller.
While some states are making prompt attempts to comply with the
Court’s decision, Iowa found a way to evade compliance. Iowa’s
Governor Terry Branstad commuted the life sentences for juveniles in his state
to a number of years. The governor changed the sentences from life
without the possibility of parole to a sixty year minimum sentence before the
juvenile is eligible for parole. Iowa’s Constitution permits the
governor to commute life sentences to a number of years; however, the question
remains whether commuting juvenile life without parole sentences to a sixty
year minimum sentence actually complies with Miller or whether the sentence in itself is unconstitutional
for a juvenile after Miller.
Miller simply
gives the judge discretion. It allows the judge to consider
mitigating factors for sentencing. Mitigating factors are factors
regarding the juvenile’s character or circumstances of the crime including but
not limited to age, mental illness, and history of maltreatment. After
considering these factors, a judge can still sentence a juvenile to life without
parole. The actions of Iowa’s governor seem to suggest that he does
not trust the state’s judges with this type of discretion. In Miller, the Court pointed out that
juveniles are immature, irresponsible, impetuous, reckless, and susceptible to
influence and psychological damage. Moreover, the Court pointed out
that the crime should be proportioned to both the offender and the offense. For
the foregoing reasons, judges need discretion in juvenile sentencing. If
Governor Branstad trusts his state’s judges then he can trust that they will
issue sentences that consider the offender’s mitigating circumstances as well
as public safety and punishment for the crime.
Iowa’s
new sentence for juveniles is arguably equivalent to a life sentence without the
possibility of parole. The average life expectancy in the United
States is seventy-eight years old. Lifelong imprisonment would
likely shorten the life expectancy age even more. For a juvenile who
is sentenced at the age of eighteen, he would not be eligible for parole until
he is seventy-eight. Iowa is essentially sentencing juveniles to
spend the rest of their life in prison give or take a couple of years. Iowa’s
governor’s actions are completely contrary to the Court’s decision and
rationale in Miller.
According
to Amnesty International, the United States is believed to be the only country
in the world to sentence its juveniles to life in prison without parole. Although
the Court’s decision in Miller is
a step in the right direction, we must completely ban juvenile life without
parole. Juveniles have the capacity to change. These are
children, many whom have not had proper care, guidance, and supervision. It
is important that the Court stated the punishment must be proportioned to both
the offender and the offense. We cannot just look at the crime; we
must look at the offender as well. When we really look at the
offender, we will see a hurt child. Many juvenile offenders have a history of
maltreatment. Maltreatment is certainly not an excuse to commit
vicious crimes, but there is a correlation between maltreatment and juvenile
criminal offense. Children are not born criminals. When a
child commits a vicious crime something has obviously gone wrong in their life. We
may not be able to protect every child from maltreatment or the violence
plaguing so many low income neighborhoods, but when the child does come to the
court’s attention, we can help that child. Our goal for juvenile
offenders should always be rehabilitation.
Tonya
Davis
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
Image By: Envios
No comments:
Post a Comment